Dietary Supplements

[Conga3]

 

It used to be called common sense, right?

 

With more and more personal responsibility being absorbed by the state through regulations or by private business/insurance companies via lawsuits, it is in less and less demand.

 

 

Yeah. The good old days . . . back when as long as your side effects didn't show up immediately you could keep raking in the money!

 

Like, oh, I don't know . . . peddling a remedy for morning sickness that causes birth defects. Oops.

 

As a result of the prenatal use of thalidomide, more than 10,000 babies in 46 countries (some estimates put the number as high as 20,000) were born with shortened or missing limbs and other deformities, which were fatal in most cases.

 

The drug was immediately taken off the shelves – the last batch in Canada in early 1962. Thousands of those who survived thalidomide-related birth defects are still alive, and coping with lifelong disablities.

 

For decades, Grünenthal denied any liability, claiming that it had conducted the clinical trials required at the time. The thalidomide scandal prompted an international overhaul in drug-testing systems.

http://rt.com/news/thalidomide-victims-apology-dismissed-165/

 

 

Ya, that was mentioned in the video.

 

I don't find the story of Thalidomide to be relevant to the discussion of increasing regulation of dietary supplements.

 

If a pharmaceutical company developed Thalidomide today, the FDA would make it go through the paces before released prescription or over-the-counter use.

 

It's a drug, not a supplement - or am I missing something here?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

It used to be called common sense, right?

 

With more and more personal responsibility being absorbed by the state through regulations or by private business/insurance companies via lawsuits, it is in less and less demand.

 

 

Yeah. The good old days . . . back when as long as your side effects didn't show up immediately you could keep raking in the money!

 

Like, oh, I don't know . . . peddling a remedy for morning sickness that causes birth defects. Oops.

 

As a result of the prenatal use of thalidomide, more than 10,000 babies in 46 countries (some estimates put the number as high as 20,000) were born with shortened or missing limbs and other deformities, which were fatal in most cases.

 

The drug was immediately taken off the shelves – the last batch in Canada in early 1962. Thousands of those who survived thalidomide-related birth defects are still alive, and coping with lifelong disablities.

 

For decades, Grünenthal denied any liability, claiming that it had conducted the clinical trials required at the time. The thalidomide scandal prompted an international overhaul in drug-testing systems.

http://rt.com/news/thalidomide-victims-apology-dismissed-165/

 

 

Ya, that was mentioned in the video.

 

I don't find the story of Thalidomide to be relevant to the discussion of increasing regulation of dietary supplements.

 

If a pharmaceutical company developed Thalidomide today, the FDA would make it go through the paces before released prescription or over-the-counter use.

 

It's a drug, not a supplement - or am I missing something here?

 

 

 

What if there was a dietary supplement that claimed to prevent morning sickness only to find out 10 years later it was causing birth defects? But, hey......mommy wasn't puking for 9 months.

[Conga3]

 

 

 

It used to be called common sense, right?

 

With more and more personal responsibility being absorbed by the state through regulations or by private business/insurance companies via lawsuits, it is in less and less demand.

 

 

Yeah. The good old days . . . back when as long as your side effects didn't show up immediately you could keep raking in the money!

 

Like, oh, I don't know . . . peddling a remedy for morning sickness that causes birth defects. Oops.

 

As a result of the prenatal use of thalidomide, more than 10,000 babies in 46 countries (some estimates put the number as high as 20,000) were born with shortened or missing limbs and other deformities, which were fatal in most cases.

 

The drug was immediately taken off the shelves – the last batch in Canada in early 1962. Thousands of those who survived thalidomide-related birth defects are still alive, and coping with lifelong disablities.

 

For decades, Grünenthal denied any liability, claiming that it had conducted the clinical trials required at the time. The thalidomide scandal prompted an international overhaul in drug-testing systems.

http://rt.com/news/thalidomide-victims-apology-dismissed-165/

 

 

Ya, that was mentioned in the video.

 

I don't find the story of Thalidomide to be relevant to the discussion of increasing regulation of dietary supplements.

 

If a pharmaceutical company developed Thalidomide today, the FDA would make it go through the paces before released prescription or over-the-counter use.

 

It's a drug, not a supplement - or am I missing something here?

 

 

 

What if there was a dietary supplement that claimed to prevent morning sickness only to find out 10 years later it was causing birth defects? But, hey......mommy wasn't puking for 9 months.

 

 

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

 

 

Sorry, but an unlikely "what if" only deserves a similarly unlikely "what if".

 

What if a supplement was found to improve life quality and extend life span, but wasn't allowed to be sold for 40 years while the FDA ran it through it's courses?

 

Think of all those people who suffered needlessly and died too soon.

 

----

 

There are trade-offs with government regulation. Always. Never not.

 

We have lots of regulation already. Tweaks are fine. Burdening an agency that should be spending resources on approving real life bettering drugs by adding a huge - and rather harmless - industry into their realm of responsibility doesn't sound smart.

 

I feel there are more "what if" positives from the lack of regulation of supplements, than the "what if" negatives of a lack of regulation.

 

I'm not closed to discussing some of these points, but silly arguments like "what if deformed babies!" doesn't really interest me.

[NUance]

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

It might. Thalidomide was sold in as many as 45 countries world wide. There were around 10,000 cases of flipper-limb birth defects world wide. The 10,000 cases is an extremely small percentage of all the millions of women who took the drug for morning sickness. That's why it took five years to figure out that Thalidomide caused birth defects.

[Conga3]

 

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

It might. Thalidomide was sold in as many as 45 countries world wide. There were around 10,000 cases of flipper-limb birth defects world wide. The 10,000 cases is an extremely small percentage of all the millions of women who took the drug for morning sickness. That's why it took five years to figure out that Thalidomide caused birth defects.

 

 

I must have a little more faith in the advances of information tech and communication since the 50's than you do? Not to mention our robust litigation economy...

 

Again, just saying 'deformed babies' doesn't make a strong argument, especially when it was a result of a drug - not a supplement - and happened in the 50's.

 

If Dr. Oz - or whoever - get's on TV and suggests a supplement that ends up deforming 10,000 babies...I'll eat my hat.

[NUance]

 

 

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

It might. Thalidomide was sold in as many as 45 countries world wide. There were around 10,000 cases of flipper-limb birth defects world wide. The 10,000 cases is an extremely small percentage of all the millions of women who took the drug for morning sickness. That's why it took five years to figure out that Thalidomide caused birth defects.

 

 

I must have a little more faith in the advances of information tech and communication since the 50's than you do?

 

Again, just saying 'deformed babies' doesn't make a strong argument, especially when it was a result of a drug - not a supplement - and happened in the 50's.

 

If Dr. Oz - or whoever - get's on TV and suggest a supplement that ends up deforming 10,000 babies...I'll eat my hat.

 

 

Whoa, take it easy there big boy. I think you snorted too much deer antler spray.

 

 

 

/ jk. I see what you're saying, and you are probably right.

[Conga3]

 

 

 

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

It might. Thalidomide was sold in as many as 45 countries world wide. There were around 10,000 cases of flipper-limb birth defects world wide. The 10,000 cases is an extremely small percentage of all the millions of women who took the drug for morning sickness. That's why it took five years to figure out that Thalidomide caused birth defects.

 

 

I must have a little more faith in the advances of information tech and communication since the 50's than you do?

 

Again, just saying 'deformed babies' doesn't make a strong argument, especially when it was a result of a drug - not a supplement - and happened in the 50's.

 

If Dr. Oz - or whoever - get's on TV and suggest a supplement that ends up deforming 10,000 babies...I'll eat my hat.

 

 

Whoa, take it easy there big boy. I think you snorted too much deer antler spray.

 

 

 

/ jk. I see what you're saying, and you are probably right.

 

 

I will not comment on any performance enhancers I may or may not take before I open up HB in my browser, per Section 1 Article 3 Official HB Rules

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

Well, it wouldn't take 10 years to figure out it was causing birth defects ... but I understand the point you are making.

It might. Thalidomide was sold in as many as 45 countries world wide. There were around 10,000 cases of flipper-limb birth defects world wide. The 10,000 cases is an extremely small percentage of all the millions of women who took the drug for morning sickness. That's why it took five years to figure out that Thalidomide caused birth defects.

 

 

I must have a little more faith in the advances of information tech and communication since the 50's than you do?

 

Again, just saying 'deformed babies' doesn't make a strong argument, especially when it was a result of a drug - not a supplement - and happened in the 50's.

 

If Dr. Oz - or whoever - get's on TV and suggest a supplement that ends up deforming 10,000 babies...I'll eat my hat.

 

 

Whoa, take it easy there big boy. I think you snorted too much deer antler spray.

 

 

 

/ jk. I see what you're saying, and you are probably right.

 

 

I will not comment on any performance enhancers I may or may not take before I open up HB in my browser, per Section 1 Article 3 Official HB Rules

 

 

lol

[carlfense]

It's a drug, not a supplement - or am I missing something here?

Do you find that distinction particularly important? If so, why?

[carlfense]

I must have a little more faith in the advances of information tech and communication since the 50's than you do?

You'd think that the very existence of these miracle supplements might do something to diminish that faith . . .

[Conga3]

 

It's a drug, not a supplement - or am I missing something here?

Do you find that distinction particularly important? If so, why?

 

 

Yes. It's comparing apples to oranges and intellectually dishonest to build a case for more regulation of supplements by referencing a failed release of a drug in the 50's.

 

You are a smart guy and know there is a difference between a supplement and a drug.

 

Not finding the distinction important - for the purposes of this discussion - is your prerogative.

[carlfense]

 

Yes. It's comparing apples to oranges and intellectually dishonest to build a case for more regulation of supplements by referencing a failed release of a drug in the 50's.

 

You are a smart guy and know there is a difference between a supplement and a drug.

 

Not finding the distinction important - for the purposes of this discussion - is your prerogative.

Could you explain? I've not said that a supplement and a drug are the same thing. I'm asking why you think that they are sufficiently different that it rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty to use a comparison in discussing regulation.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

 

 

Or perhaps we could discuss why it's so important that dietary supplements remain largely unregulated. The potential costs are easy enough to spot . . . but what are the benefits that have come about from/after the deregulation in 1994?

[Conga3]

 

 

Yes. It's comparing apples to oranges and intellectually dishonest to build a case for more regulation of supplements by referencing a failed release of a drug in the 50's.

 

You are a smart guy and know there is a difference between a supplement and a drug.

 

Not finding the distinction important - for the purposes of this discussion - is your prerogative.

Could you explain? I've not said that a supplement and a drug are the same thing. I'm asking why you think that they are sufficiently different that it rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty to use a comparison in discussing regulation.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

 

 

Or perhaps we could discuss why it's so important that dietary supplements remain largely unregulated. The potential costs are easy enough to spot . . . but what are the benefits that have come about from/after the deregulation in 1994?

 

 

Nah. I'll just be done on this topic. I'm getting bored with it :/

 

I just don't have the vigor you do to keep going in these threads. I wonder if there is a supplement for that?

 

'Till next time carlfense. It's always enjoyable.

 

 

 

.

[TGHusker]

Carl, thanks for posting this. Very funny - made my afternoon. But also very serious. Big Supplement companies appear to be as big as Big Drug companies when it comes to the strength of their influence on congress.

[strigori]

 

 

Yes. It's comparing apples to oranges and intellectually dishonest to build a case for more regulation of supplements by referencing a failed release of a drug in the 50's.

 

You are a smart guy and know there is a difference between a supplement and a drug.

 

Not finding the distinction important - for the purposes of this discussion - is your prerogative.

Could you explain? I've not said that a supplement and a drug are the same thing. I'm asking why you think that they are sufficiently different that it rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty to use a comparison in discussing regulation.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

 

 

Or perhaps we could discuss why it's so important that dietary supplements remain largely unregulated. The potential costs are easy enough to spot . . . but what are the benefits that have come about from/after the deregulation in 1994?

 

What would need to be defined is the difference between something like a simple multi-vitamin or calcium tab and the more complex items that are borderlinning between a natural supplement, and a drug. Part of the push for the regulation is also coming from big pharma. Some of the claims that these items are making could be attacked with truth in advertising laws, and where the John Oliver piece mentions many of tested items did not contain what they claimed, that is also subject to laws that are already on the books.